Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Irrational Rationalism, Untrue Truth, and Illiberal Liberty

Next up in Logic and Transcendence is chapter three, Rationalism Real and Apparent. This will no doubt require more than one post to unpack, as it is full of vital information that every human being needs to know in order to resist the depredations of the secular idiobots, scientistic matter jockeys, and Darwinian DNA hosts, and their intrinsically anti-human agenda.

Once again I am reminded that Schuon is not only perhaps the greatest religious thinker of the 20th century, but -- and for that very reason -- the greatest humanist. And since his stance embodies the essence of real humanism, it stands to reason that those who explicitly or implicitly oppose it are trying to undermine and eliminate our very humanness. It is again confusing, because some of the worst offenders in this regard are called "humanists" (cf. Dr. Sanity's post on the brave New Enlightenment).

Let's begin with a discussion of the limits of reason. If one fails to understand that reason is grounded in something that transcends reason, one renders oneself intellectually blind and spiritually deaf, or an autodeceiver. As Schuon explains, there are two conditions that always condition the effectiveness of our reasoning, one of which is internal, the other external.

The internal factor is "the acuity and profundity of the intelligence" involved. This factor obviously transcends reason, as it varies dramatically in the human mom & population. Shallow and deep thinkers are equally capable of reasoning. For example, in the hands of a shallow intellect such as Charles the Queeg, reason simply confirms its own shallowness, and searches no further. Reason encircles itself and closes up shop, just waiting for the dirt to fall or fire to consume.

But intelligence is not simply a linear phenomenon, as the one-dimensional measurement of IQ would imply. Rather, intelligence "goes beyond the indirect processes of reason in calling upon pure intellection." A mere rationalist is simply someone who is, for whatever reason, unable to reason adequately in realms that transcend the material.

The second factor that interferes with intelligence is again external. It has to do with "the value or extent of the available information." It is more than just a case of "garbage in, garbage out," because the rationalist systematically excludes whole dimensions of reality in trying to describe reality, most notably, revelation in both its principle modes, i.e., God's vertical messages to the human subject, and the human subject as such.

As we have mentioned many times, the human subject is without question the most astonishing fact of the cosmos, but rationalism would reduce the subject to just one of the items in its vast bag of tricks, i.e., logic. However, anyone but a rationalist knows that logic cannot furnish its own materials on which to operate.

It is a "sign of the times" -- i.e., the Age of Stupidity -- that it is even necessary to point out that not every problem can be solved by means of logic alone. Again, to even attempt to do this is both inhuman and anti-human.

It reminds me of CDs, which have to chop off the top and bottom of the musical signal in order to fit it onto the disc. Yes, it provides a facsimile of the music, but something indefinable is lost in translation, most especially the subtleties of the human voice. This post at American Digest inspired me to appreciate my vinyl more than I do, and it's just undeniable. Interestingly, if you "try" to hear the difference, you may not notice. Rather, you have to just passively listen, and notice the different effect on one's being. It's somewhat like the difference between film and video, but more subtle, since the ears are more subtle than the eyes. But religion is similar, in that it subtly discloses other worlds that will be inaccessible to the substitious materialist.

Anyway, the bottom line is that "all thoroughgoing rationalism is false by definition." Think of the implications of this: truth and falsehood lie outside the realm of mere (small-r) reason, a realm that we can know -- and only know -- a priori. If this hasn't yet "clicked" for you, it will as we proceed. But it is a critical point to bear in mind, especially when it comes to the proofs of God, which can only "indicate" in the manner of a great work of art-- and even then only to a person of good will and sufficient intelligence who actually wishes to understand them.

Another critical point: when intellection is rejected, it doesn't just disappear, any more than an unconscious conflict disappears by denying it. Rather, it is simply replaced by all kinds of crazy things, from Marxism, to metaphysical Darwinism, to Scientology, you name it.

What really happens is that the individual severs himself from the objective world disclosed by pure intellection, and plunges himself into subjectivism. If you are following me, this is the source of the left's perverse forms of "freedom." Really, it is the transgressive freedom to be stupid, evil, or insane, so we really need a different word to describe it. Perhaps "lawlessness." But lawlessness is simply the law of the jungle.

Regarding the profundity of intelligence alluded to above; again, we are not talking about a two-dimensional line that can plot different degrees of smarts. Rather, there are two-dimensional, three-dimensional, and hyperdimensional intellects. Furthermore, the lower dimensional intellect cannot know of the higher dimension except through its products, which will initially appear as either magic or foolishness. But if it can truly grasp the products of the higher dimension, it can begin to assimilate and embody it. This is my [hyperdimensional] body, etc.

This is elementary. One of the joys of watching my son grow and develop is witnessing his slow (actually freakishly rapid) conquest of more subtle dimensions of humanness. It never ceases to amaze. It's quite obvious that he is not simply becoming more intelligent or logical in some linear way. Rather, it's much more a case of whole new spaces opening up to him.

Of course, these spaces need to be mirrored by the environment, or they will simply close up again. The law of pneuma-neurology is "use it or lose it." Many if not virtually all atheists have simply abandoned the brain circuits they need in order to know God. Like any skill, from writing to archery, it requires practice. Only Kim Jong Il and Barack Obama can produce a literary classic with no prior experience at writing.

You are now in the position to understand the ironic fact that pure rationalism does not disclose the objective world. Rather, it eventually "gives way to individualism [the bad kind] and arbitrariness insofar as it is divorced from the intellect." The One Truth is thereby replaced with a multitude of kooky so-called truths. Again, the only way one could believe the fairy tale of metaphysical Darwinism is to live in an eccentric world of pure subjectivity detached from the Real, but reinforced by other spiritual retards.

And it is ec-centric, or "outside the circle," the circle whose center is everywhere because the intellect is. Yes, human beings are without question the center of the cosmos regarded vertically, not horizontally (think of the point at the top of a cone, without which there could be no cone). Horizontally, it is correct to say that there is no center, only periphery, and therefore no truth or intellect. But that just proves the intrinsic stupidity of horizontal intelligence divorced from its vertical source and ground.

Intelligence as such is intrinsically unlimited, and therefore not reducible to the horizontal. Or, if it is limited, who limited it? Who put up the wall, if not intelligence? But if intelligence can wall itself in, it can also transcend the walls it imposes upon itself.

"Hence" -- logically! -- "one of two things: either the intelligence by definition includes a principle of illimitability or liberty, whatever the degree of its actualization, in which case there is no need to attribute limits to it." Or, intelligence includes "a principle of limitation or constraint, in which case it no longer includes any certainty and can function no differently from the intelligence of animals..." (Schuon).

Which is why only the religious man can be free and why the radical humanist is a slave or worse, i.e., a slave trader or slaveholder.

Indeed s/h/it is. If the post is so dull, rackbabi, you could try bringing something of actual interest to the comments. But that would require you to actually make use of that densely flabby block perched on your shoulders.

We eat meat here. If you can't digest it, consider finding a source of milk that's more to your taste until your digestive system can handle grownup food.

"This is elementary. One of the joys of watching my son grow and develop is witnessing his slow (actually freakishly rapid) conquest of more subtle dimensions of humanness. It never ceases to amaze. It's quite obvious that he is not simply becoming more intelligent or logical in some linear way. Rather, it's much more a case of whole new spaces opening up to him."

This is very accurate. Sometimes the leaps are so sudden and huge that it must be as if a light is turned on.

But it is a critical point to bear in mind, especially when it comes to the proofs of God, which can only "indicate" in the manner of a great work of art-- and even then only to a person of good will and sufficient intelligence who actually wishes to understand them.

"Adaequatio".

Last night I fell asleep while watching the news (I hate that). Anyway, I was awakened by a disturbing dream that upon reflection turned out to be cathartic. I was attending some sort of weekend congregation; some people I knew, some I didn't, but The Won was there, as a participant. He came across as charming and quiet and completely uninvolved. Sort of a zombie. Then some of my old friends from my Leftist daze began arriving and I felt the need to excuse myself to the privvy. The small room was tiled in white, but the light was dim. As I approached the loo, I could see it was stuffed with pee & paper, obviously had not been flushed for a while. (I really hate that.) Even a cigarette had been left burning on the edge of the bowl.

Hanging down, directly above the john, were several big commerical restaurant dishwashing sprayers. I decided to give it a go. Stepping on the john's flushing lever with my foot, I pulled down one of the hoses and squeezed the lever. I was surprised at how quickly I was able to tidy up the place. (No more news before bedtime.)

After I woke up, reflected on the dream but couldn't fall back to sleep, I went into the kitchen and warmed up a glass of milk, picked up the closest book on the nightstand and climbed into bed, where I opened to the bookmarked page and read Schumacher's chapter on "Adaequatio". I was so primed to get today's post. Thanks Bob.

Bob, I'll never forget the time I introduced him to "lawyer jokes" (no offence lawyers). He was about 9 I think. before I got to the punch line he blurts out, "shoot the lawyer twice!"Now apart from my enourmous rush of pride, you have to notice how he learned an entire new language based only on other ones he knew.

I once had a very intelligent physics teacher and in the back row these guys kept saying lame things about the class. They were sitting next to me and I finally said "shut up", to which they replied "okay mom". A nice guy (and cute I might add) in the class said to me that if it was jr. high, he would have taken them to the playgound in my defense.

Anyway, I experienced almost the exact response upon seeing rb's comments. I'll just say it - disgust.

Anyway my point was that I don't understand how you can voice that you think it's a "snoozer" even if you feel that way. Is it your "right" to be "interested" by Bob's posts? Anyway, if it's not interesting to you, maybe read or do something else. That would make more sense.

"What really happens is that the individual severs himself from the objective world disclosed by pure intellection, and plunges himself into subjectivism. If you are following me, this is the source of the left's perverse forms of "freedom." Really, it is the transgressive freedom to be stupid, evil, or insane, so we really need a different word to describe it..."

In my windy way, I've tried to say that Descartes' core, and worst, error, provided the knife which has assisted in severing Modernity from Objectivity - he legitimized the arbitrary (which Rousseau raised to an art form). As any logician worth his Spock will tell you, once you introduce or accept the arbitrary into an argument, you have invalidated any further premises and conclusions. The only proper response to the arbitrary, is dismissal. If you accept it, you are undone... severed from reality.

What's the hook? Why do people, 'philosophers', buy into it? Well, from one perspective, if you will only separate the fruit from the tree and its roots in reality, it provides the ssspinster with enough sssizzle to sssell you that ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, and of course able to say yourself what is good, what is evil... or that all is good and nothing is evil... once severed after all, it's all relative.

Link to the American Digest article was an eye-opener -- and somewhat heart-breaking. When you think of the tens of millions of dollars Obama is flushing per minute... yet nobody to save this noble music lover's work of a lifetime. What a shame. Perhaps the collection will still find a good home.

As for vinyl, only one experience has ever surpassed a Sheffield direct-to-disc Harry James record on a Linn Sondek turntable with Naim amps and Linn Sara speakers: actually sitting in front of a live brass orchestra. CDs aren't even close, and unfortunately I no longer have the equipment installed to compare head-to-head with SA-CD or DVD Audio. Like my prized '68 Camaro SS396 ragtop, the Linn system was a victim of youth's heedless whirl. The audio system I have now is no slouch, but far from the purity available from those classic era components.

Heh. Just realized that in previous post I mentioned comparing vinyl to other formats "head-to-head". What a scientistic thing to say!

Bob is completely correct that refined audio with an analog source (vinyl or very good analog tape) is simply more musical than digital formats, but that there is no "objective" way to "prove" this, any more than you can scientifically prove that you love your mother.

Furthermore, double-blind tests etc just miss the point. The fact that the experiment is happening means you aren't currently open to musicality in the first place.

One thing I can say about the digital age -- it is mighty convenient to be able to pull up almost anything in a few seconds on YouTube. I can't exactly pop down to Barnes and Noble and expect to find this on a whim. Once I find what I'm looking for on YouTube, I can generally get it in a day from Amazon.

What about that remark in the Mawhinney piece to the effect that only 17% of '40s to '60s music is currently available in digital formats... lost.

Oh lord, please not that. I still have horrible flashbacks of leftist groupies swooning over his "purple lips." I don't even want to imagine how they'd describe the rest.

This is somewhat interesting, though. My city does a "Second Friday" event each month to try and get people to come downtown and wander the streets. In September, the event coincides with the local arts center's open house event, featuring various local arts groups, etc. This year, the day is 9/11, and the event is scheduled to go on with a big celebration, including a sister cities event. Thrills, shows, excitement, fire (the season's theme has to do with "firing the imagination" or something. So yeah - fire). You know, real tasteful-like. More time will be spent focused on cities in various other countries than on anything that's happened in our own. I think there might be some kind of small art exhibit to recognize the date, but otherwise it's all about the entertainment. The participating arts groups are delighted to be a part of it. Several, including mine (thankfully), have backed out.

I note this not to suggest that government (other than the city government) has anything to do with it. Rather, it's the mentality that everybody should just move on already, nothing worth remembering on that day, it's time to party.

Quick, off the top of your head, what day was it when Martin Luther King or JFK were shot? When Katrina hit? How about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean?

The events of September 11th were incredibly tragic and devastating, and while remembering them on that same day this year is certainly appropriate, it really is just another day where the Earth is in a similar position in its orbit as it was the day of the attacks. The only reason everyone refers to the events as "September 11th" is because it's tough to come up with a better term for coordinated tragedies in New York, DC and Pennsylvania. Don't tell me I can't have an art fest on that day.

babybackribs said "Quick, off the top of your head, what day was it when Martin Luther King or JFK were shot? When Katrina hit? How about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean?"

Quick, off the top of your head which of these don't belong with the others?12/7/1941, 9/11/2001, the assassination dates for Abe Lincoln, JFK, Martin Luther King, Pres McKinley, Pres Garfield (tip: the actual dates don’t matter)

Bonus points - how are they different? (Hint, it has something to do with whether A person was killed, or thousands of people were killed... and whether or not 'War' followed)

Super bonus points – how many festive happy celebrations were held on Dec 7th during WWII?

Good points, Van.And to some it is a matter of priorities.Such as to this man:"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."~John AdamsHe earned his free country.

Ricky said "Scipio's blog is down. Looks like maybe his domain name expired."

I noticed that at lunch... was hoping if I just did like lefties do, keep repeating 'la...la...la... I don't not see it... la... la... la" it'd turn out alright, just down for quick maintenance or something.

Just started the new Reagan bio, and it's terrific so far. It covers 1980 to 1989, while volume one covered 1964 to 1980. Volume one is highly recommended -- Hayward is an excellent writer, and it reads like a novel.

The thing I like most about it is that while I lived through those years, I was still in the fantasy world of liberalism, so I actually missed them. So it's like reliving those years again for the first time.

Fun fact, I went to Jr. High with him... and while that may not be too indicative of his politics, he was good kid (what with his Dad outranking God in Vegas at that time, that's saying something)... but then again I'd be urging my family and friends to dig up Spilotro and vote for him, if it could knock Reid out of the Senate - ol' 'pasty face' deserves nothing less.

Bob: Have you been to the Reagan library just north of you. It is an amazing tour through that time period - my wife and I were overwhelmed with many things that we had forgotten and it was a great introduction to that period for our kids. Warning: when they tell you that it is a few hours to do it right, believe them (at least if your wife refuses to just scoot through the Nancy Reagan dress collection ;-) (hint, she didn't EVER descend from Air Force One in shorts).

Intriguing too is Mike's last post in Google reader which begins: (He didn't have full feed turned on)

Better Late Than Neverby ScipioAug 24, 2009

Here is another winning headline. Kennedy should resign A pity it was not written 40 years ago when it might have made a difference. Some Democrats say that Kennedy should resign “as a matter of integrity.” Integrity? Apparently the Democrats are “keenly feeling the absence of Ted Kennedy.” Well boys, you had best get used to it. Kennedy is 77 [...]

Julie that article you linked doesn't seem to actually link the current reform to forced circumcision(ignoring the death panels comment, which already exist under the guise of "claims adjusters," and despite not actually existing under the plans proposed).

It sounds like the proposal would have the same potential outcome regardless of current legislative actions. If we're going to have an honest debate, certain members need to start being honest.

anonymous said "...ignoring the death panels comment, which already exist under the guise of "claims adjusters," and despite not actually existing under the plans proposed..."

From a popular Obama controlled care email making the rounds, I picked out 50 items of concern and posted them at the bottom of this post, with links into the ref'd page of the proposed House bill. The one referencing pg 425 " Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life " may give you some cause for caution, but if not, scroll on up to the line referencing,pg 272 "SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients" and work your way back down.

If you aren't able to at the very least foresee that the detrimental economic consequences of just those items alone will produce defacto death sentences due to restricted supply and quality of resources and care givers, then you've no business involving yourself in any business... certainly not ours.

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who?! spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!